Will computers ever solve chess? - Chess Forums - Page 292

ptd570 · 2014-01-22T11:57:20-08:00

Will there ever be a computer strong enough to solve chess to the point where white uses its half tempo advantage to always beat black no matter what moves black plays (in otherwords the same computer can never win with black even after a thousand random games against itself) I beleive one day the

DiogenesDue

Jun 28, 2018

0

#5821

ilovesmetuna wrote:

interesting how something that totally doesn't matter produces such bitterness, such pain.

...more interesting that you are reading something that you think doesn't matter and is full of pain and bitterness; but then, you have always been an observer of the sidelines of everything, making catty comments (hahahaha, how smositional of me there) but never risking your own ideas in any real way.

I've seen you attribute pain and bitterness on several threads where there didn't seem to be anything much. I don't really care to speculate whether that's because you feel that yourself and just see it everywhere, or because you enjoy provoking those emotions and like to revel in them when you think they are present...but you might want to have a go at finding out why yourself. It could improve your overall mental health and/or usefulness as a human being.

ponz111

Jun 28, 2018

0

#5822

USArmyParatrooper wrote: ponz in blue

Oh for the love of God.

1. Even IF all of the top players believe it is proven that solved chess is a draw, that would be meaningless. i do not know of any top player who states it is proven that solved chess is a draw. This is NOT the claim i have been making. of course we all know chess is not "solved"

The great players state chess is a draw with perfect play. This is a different statement than chess is "solved" The term solved indicates all possible positions and chess games would be considered to show a result. This may NEVER HAPPEN that chess is "solved"

Being a great player no more makes you an authority on the result of solved chess than being and auto mechanic makes you an authority on horsepower. I never made the claim that being a great player makes someone an authority of "solved" chess. My statement is that they assume chess is a draw [and of course they have very good reasons to assume this] Many top players [such as world champions] have stated chess is a draw with perfect play. They are NOT STATING chess is "solved" I am not stating chess is "solved".

2. You have not even come close to demonstrating that the majority of top players think it is PROVEN that solved chess is a draw. You are using a strawman argument. I have never said that the majority of top players think it is proven that "solved" chess is a draw. I have never seen even one top player state that "solved" chess is a draw. They state chess is a draw with perfect play. Again, this is different than saying chess is "sloved"

I don’t doubt the majority THINK it is. I seriously doubt very many think they KNOW, or that it has been PROVEN. I do not even know of one top player who believes chess is solved. I never said any top player believes chess is solved.

Show me a scientific survey that demonstrates otherwise, otherwise you are talking out of your behind. You are using a strawman argument--I never said chess is solved. In Fact I have often stated that chess may never be solved and that the sun might explode before we can solve chess. [just look at my past statements about chess being solved]

USArmyParatrooper

Jun 28, 2018

0

#5823

Wow. So what, to you, is “solved” chess?

ponz111

Jun 28, 2018

0

#5824

lfPatriotGames wrote: ponz in

Good grief that's a lot of backpedaling/diversion/evasion. And for what purpose? It seems like discussing whether or not chess is solvable, whether or not computers can solve chess, etc. would be a lot easier if we started from a more honest position. Like this. I don't know if chess is a draw or not. I dont know if it can be solved. I can't prove it has been solved (and haven't proven it).

Starting from the dishonest position of "I know chess is a draw" and "I have proven it" really muddies things up unnecessarily.

So you are saying all those world champions were not honest? You are saying they were lying when they stated that chess is a draw with perfect play??

Do you really want to use an ad hominem attack against those world champions and also myself? Did you ever consider that these world champions might have had reasons why they believe [or believed] chess is a draw with perfect play?

DiogenesDue

Jun 28, 2018

0

#5825

ponz111 wrote:

Do you really want to use an ad hominem attack against those world champions and also myself?

You're doing it again...it's clear you either never read what was posted, or that you entirely fail to understand the definition of an ad hominem attack.

DiogenesDue

Jun 28, 2018

0

#5826

ponz111 wrote:

lfPatriotGames wrote: ponz in

Good grief that's a lot of backpedaling/diversion/evasion. And for what purpose? It seems like discussing whether or not chess is solvable, whether or not computers can solve chess, etc. would be a lot easier if we started from a more honest position. Like this. I don't know if chess is a draw or not. I dont know if it can be solved. I can't prove it has been solved (and haven't proven it).

Starting from the dishonest position of "I know chess is a draw" and "I have proven it" really muddies things up unnecessarily.

So you are saying all those world champions were not honest? You are saying they were lying when they stated that chess is a draw with perfect play??

Do you really want to use an ad hominem attack against those world champions and also myself? Did you ever consider that these world champions might have had reasons why they believe [or believed] chess is a draw with perfect play?

They weren't lying, they were just wrong to make such a claim without enough supporting evidence.

By the way, you have never addressed this excerpt from the Wikipedia article you quoted:

"The view that a game of chess should end in a draw given best play prevails. Even if it cannot be proved,"

It's an educated guess and an opinion held by many chess players, including many top chess players. That's all you can claim. Any claims, even if a smart GM were willing to make such a claim nowadays, that chess has been proven to be a draw with best play are just bluster and BS, like yours.

Steinitz made the claim because he considered that there was no higher authority on "best play" than himself. GMs of the modern era know quite differently and have more manageable egos. On that note, I think you should hop in a time machine and shuffle off to 1890, where your premise will be adored and fawned upon...

troy7915

Jun 28, 2018

0

#5827

ponz111 wrote:

troy7915 wrote:

Definitely not for ponz...His brain is simply incapable of getting such a simple thing.

Do not tell me what I know or do not know.

For example I know the centipawn values are not perfect and I never said they were perfect.

You are using the logical fallacy of Ad hominem again.

Again, defending paranoid attacks. It’s just a fact, you simply didn’t get btickler’s post. Several of us made the same points over and over, you’re just not smart enough to understand a simple thing.

troy7915

Jun 28, 2018

0

#5828

ilovesmetuna wrote:

ponz111 wrote:

troy7915 wrote:

Definitely not for ponz...His brain is simply incapable of getting such a simple thing.

Do not tell me what I know or do not know.

For example I know the centipawn values are not perfect and I never said they were perfect.

You are using the logical fallacy of Ad hominem again.

his brain is not capable of getting such a simple statement.

The one who has nothing to say, as usual.

troy7915

Jun 28, 2018

0

#5829

ponz111 wrote:

troy7915 wrote:

To 7689:

Engine-level games and perfect play are also two different things.

And those games ending in 16 moves are not perfect—apart from the fact that those 16 moves or less cannot be proven perfect— because the players agreed to a draw. There are many reasons players agree to a draw, and the impossibility of winning no matter what is not one of them.

The truth is some games ending in 16 moves are perfect and some games ending in 16 moves are not perfect.

I never said that because two players agree to a draw that the game was perfect.

You cannot say why 2 people agree to a draw.

I never said that engine level games are perfect. Some engine level games are perfect and some engine level games are not perfect.

Sigh...It’s the third time you think I was addressing you when I didn’t. As the first line indicates, that post addressed Vick’s. So much for attention.

You’re just repeating the same idiocies, like some 16-moves games are perfect, because they don’t change the theoretical result of the game, which you also don’t know. Two stupidities linked together don’t make up a non-stupidity.

Or the same idiocy applied to engines. You’re so far from detecting a perfect game from start to finish, as you are from growing wings to fly around.

troy7915

Jun 28, 2018

0

#5830

ponz111 wrote:

lfPatriotGames wrote: ponz in

Good grief that's a lot of backpedaling/diversion/evasion. And for what purpose? It seems like discussing whether or not chess is solvable, whether or not computers can solve chess, etc. would be a lot easier if we started from a more honest position. Like this. I don't know if chess is a draw or not. I dont know if it can be solved. I can't prove it has been solved (and haven't proven it).

Starting from the dishonest position of "I know chess is a draw" and "I have proven it" really muddies things up unnecessarily.

You are saying they were lying when they stated that chess is a draw with perfect play??

This limited brain still doesn’t get what lying actually means.

vickalan

Jun 28, 2018

0

#5831

troy7915 wrote:

...You’re just repeating the same idiocies, like some 16-moves games are perfect....

Just to clarify: You haven't concluded that a 16 move game cannot be perfect, have you?

qwesef

Jun 28, 2018

0

#5832

qwesef

Jun 28, 2018

0

#5833

black to move

lfPatriotGames

Jun 29, 2018

0

#5834

vickalan wrote:

troy7915 wrote:

...You’re just repeating the same idiocies, like some 16-moves games are perfect....

Just to clarify: You haven't concluded that a 16 move game cannot be perfect, have you?

Maybe thats possible. But if a 16 move game could be perfect, why are there 17 move games?

ponz111

Jun 29, 2018

0

#5835

lfPatriotGames wrote:

vickalan wrote:

troy7915 wrote:

...You’re just repeating the same idiocies, like some 16-moves games are perfect....

Just to clarify: You haven't concluded that a 16 move game cannot be perfect, have you?

Maybe thats possible. But if a 16 move game could be perfect, why are there 17 move games?

Because if chess is a draw [as most of the very top players believe] there could be millions of ways to play a perfect game. There would not just be one game or one series of moves leading to a draw.

square0

Jun 29, 2018

0

#5836

Preggo_Basashi skrev:

Is it that hard for you to imagine someone making the mistake of claiming they know for sure chess is a draw with best play?

Pretty ironic for someone posting in this topic...

And I feel like it's too obvious to be worth stating that nobody knows for sure whether or not chess is a draw with perfect play.

Checkers has been solved to a draw, so I would say a good guess would be it is the same with chess. The symmetrical structure of the game, should give about equal chances for both sides, with a small advantage to white having the first move. But to suppose there is a forced win for win just because of the first move advantage, I think is to stretch it a bit. - That said, yes it has not been proven there isn't a forced win, but I doubt you would get very many (if any) top players of the game to say in public they believe the half move is enough to force every game to a win for white (with perfect play from both sides).

ponz111

Jun 29, 2018

0

#5837

btickler wrote:

ponz111 wrote:

lfPatriotGames wrote: ponz in

Good grief that's a lot of backpedaling/diversion/evasion. And for what purpose? It seems like discussing whether or not chess is solvable, whether or not computers can solve chess, etc. would be a lot easier if we started from a more honest position. Like this. I don't know if chess is a draw or not. I dont know if it can be solved. I can't prove it has been solved (and haven't proven it).

Starting from the dishonest position of "I know chess is a draw" and "I have proven it" really muddies things up unnecessarily.

So you are saying all those world champions were not honest? You are saying they were lying when they stated that chess is a draw with perfect play??

Do you really want to use an ad hominem attack against those world champions and also myself? Did you ever consider that these world champions might have had reasons why they believe [or believed] chess is a draw with perfect play?

They weren't lying, they were just wrong to make such a claim without enough supporting evidence.If you bother to read what she said it was "Starting from the dishonest position of "I know chess is a draw." and "I have proven it." [did you notice she used the term "dishonest"?] Clearly she believes people who state chess is a draw are being "dishonest".

By the way, you have never addressed this excerpt from the Wikipedia article you quoted:

"The view that a game of chess should end in a draw given best play prevails. Even if it cannot be proved," The Wiki article said EVEN if it cannot be proved. It was a conditional. From that one sentence, we do not know if these former world champions thought they had proof or not? For sure they had evidence that chess is a draw with best play and for sure they were confident that chess is a draw with best play. But we do not know if they thought they had enough evidence to prove chess is a draw or not?

But I have information that those world champions and other top players did not have when they were world champions. In other words, there has been more evidence that chess is a draw which came out after the times when these top players were world champions.

It's an educated guess and an opinion held by many chess players, including many top chess players. Are you speaking for those world champions? They state chess is a draw with best play. They do not state this is an "educated guess". You are putting words in their mouths that they may or may not have said. Certainty they state chess is a draw with best play. That's all you can claim.NO!! It is not all I can claim. I can claim chess is a draw [just like those world champions can claim chess is a draw]. Why? because I have a ton of evidence to support my claim.

Any claims, even if a smart GM were willing to make such a claim nowadays, that chess has been proven to be a draw with best play are just bluster and BS, like yours.You are doing BS -- you have not even seen all my evidence. And when you do see part of my evidence you are reduced to disparaging a player such as Kasparov who is one of the best players of all time! To have to disparage the chess ability of Kasparov is a good indication of how weak your position is.

Steinitz made the claim because he considered that there was no higher authority on "best play" than himself. What a s...load of BS! You are claiming you know how someone from about the year 1890 thinks???

GMs of the modern era know quite differently and have more manageable egos. On that note, I think you should hop in a time machine and shuffle off to 1890, where your premise will be adored and fawned upon...Actually my premises is that the vast majority of top players assume chess is a draw. This I have proven by two pieces of very good evidence.

ponz111

Jun 29, 2018

0

#5838

square0 wrote:

Preggo_Basashi skrev:

Is it that hard for you to imagine someone making the mistake of claiming they know for sure chess is a draw with best play?

Pretty ironic for someone posting in this topic...

And I feel like it's too obvious to be worth stating that nobody knows for sure whether or not chess is a draw with perfect play.

Checkers has been solved to a draw, so I would say a good guess would be it is the same with chess. The symmetrical structure of the game, should give about equal chances for both sides, with a small advantage to white having the first move. But to suppose there is a forced win for win just because of the first move advantage, I think is to stretch it a bit. - That said, yes it has not been proven there isn't a forced win, but I doubt you would get very many (if any) top players of the game to say in public they believe the half move is enough to force every game to a win for white (with perfect play from both sides).

Before checkers was "solved" Just about all the top players stated that checkers is a draw with best play. Did they have math proven evidence that checkers is a draw with best play?? Of course not! But they were strong enough players and had enough evidence that they were comfortable with stating checkers is a draw with best play!

In fact they were so CONFIDENT that checkers is a draw that the top

tournament officials

would force the opening move [or moves] into various lines as they knew the top players could easily play to a draw from the opening position!

[by the way many checker players called their game "draughts"]

Same thing is happening with chess. Most of the top players assume chess is a draw with best play. When they play chess they assume chess is a draw

and their play is reflective of this.

They know that White starts with a slightly better position but they also know that the slightly better position eventually evaporates to a draw with best play...

Elroch

Jun 29, 2018

0

#5839

ponz111 wrote:

lfPatriotGames wrote: ponz in

Good grief that's a lot of backpedaling/diversion/evasion. And for what purpose? It seems like discussing whether or not chess is solvable, whether or not computers can solve chess, etc. would be a lot easier if we started from a more honest position. Like this. I don't know if chess is a draw or not. I dont know if it can be solved. I can't prove it has been solved (and haven't proven it).

Starting from the dishonest position of "I know chess is a draw" and "I have proven it" really muddies things up unnecessarily.

So you are saying all those world champions were not honest? You are saying they were lying when they stated that chess is a draw with perfect play??

This is a very odd claim. You acknowledge that none of them know chess is a draw. It is their judgement as imperfect chess players that chess is a draw, by extrapolation from their experience to a standard of play at least 1000 points stronger. If they think they are certain about the result of chess, this is misplaced certainty, an erroneous belief. Otherwise, they are either right or wrong. There are no large sample probabilities here: it's simply one or the other.

Preggo_Basashi

Jun 29, 2018

0

#5840

square0 wrote:

Preggo_Basashi skrev:

Is it that hard for you to imagine someone making the mistake of claiming they know for sure chess is a draw with best play?

Pretty ironic for someone posting in this topic...

And I feel like it's too obvious to be worth stating that nobody knows for sure whether or not chess is a draw with perfect play.

Checkers has been solved to a draw, so I would say a good guess would be it is the same with chess. The symmetrical structure of the game, should give about equal chances for both sides, with a small advantage to white having the first move. But to suppose there is a forced win for win just because of the first move advantage, I think is to stretch it a bit. - That said, yes it has not been proven there isn't a forced win, but I doubt you would get very many (if any) top players of the game to say in public they believe the half move is enough to force every game to a win for white (with perfect play from both sides).

10x10 checkers (the international version) has not been solved.

But yes, I assume most laymen use this reasoning: computers do stuff better and better so the answer is they will always succeed at some point.

But chess is too big. That "some point" is further away than the age of the universe, and that's why people say it's not going to happen.